Rochester Hills Legistar System

Roger Rousse, Director of DPS, provided an update on National Twist Drill noting the

following:

* The City is currently in the process of filing a civil suit against the property owner on

the Northeast corner of Tienken and Rochester Roads to recover damages amounting

to $433,000 plus legal fees for the replacement of a sewer, he noted the following:

* The building has only sewer service.

* Damage was caused by two (2) cleaning companies who leased space in the building.

* Automotive rags, which were laundered, contained volatile compounds that softened

the plastic pipe causing its collapse.

Mr. Rousse suggested that the City strengthen it's Ordinance language. He noted the

application for discharge is applied for directly through DWSD. The City of Rochester

Hills has no discharge permitting process. He further noted that DWSD had cited the

building for failure to treat and adjust the PH level and for discharging volatile

compounds.

Mr. Rousse referenced the City's weakness is in ordinance which states "...if the owner

of the building wishes to have the responsibility for the sewer and water charges placed

on someone else, they have to come in, give us all that information and put money in

escrow....". He explained that the City has informed the owner he is also the user and is

in non compliance with City Ordinance. He concluded that the City is trying to work with

the owner's insurance companies to resolve this issue without going to court.

Scott Cope, Director of Building, stated he is waiting on pending direction from

Community Development & Viability Committee regarding the Solid Waste issue.

Jim Rosen, City Council, stated Solid Waste discussion will be held on March 29, 2006

City Council Workshop.

Mr. Rosen discussed the possibility of introducing a problem understanding software

called "Mind Mapping" at the workshop.

Roger Rousse, Director of DPS, discussed the proposed Street Lighting Policy noting

the following:

* The Policy will address prioritizing street lighting issues based on health, safety and

welfare of the community.

* The Policy will help the City avoid incurring costs for new street lights that do not

benefit the public.

* The City has the responsibility for street lighting whether its out of necessity or for

decorative reasons due to their placement in the right-of-ways.

* The City incurs liability if subdivisions do not maintain street lights due to their

placement in the right-of-way. City would then decide whether to maintain them or

remove them.

* The first draft copy suggested the following three (3) tier approval process:

* Engineering Department

* Advisory Traffic Safety Board

* City Council

Melinda Hill, resident, suggested omitting individual City Council approval due to City

Council approval at budget process.

Mr. Rosen agreed that the Advisory Traffic Safety Board should not have final approval

because that Board is not a policy decision maker; he further stated that Engineering

should have the final approval.

Mr. Rousse in response to questions indicated that street lighting is an ongoing cost for

energy and maintenance.

* Street lighting policy has flexibility built in. The lights are taxed; the City collects and

issues payment to DTE or DTE could bill directly

Mr. Rousse indicated he will make revisions to the Policy as requested by the

Committee and bring it forward for recommendation and for approval by City Council.

* Some of things the City can do to raise awareness of Conservation Easements are as

follows:

* When land changes ownership, the easement is identified on the deed and the

City sends Land Trust Alliance notification that there is a Conservation Easement.

* Determine maintenance management before City acquisition takes place.

* In house, the City can raise the awareness of Conservation Easements.

* Consensus of the Planning Commission is for the City to acquire Conservation

Easements due to them being valuable assets to the community, such as wetland

preservation, tree preservation or native grass preservation.

* It was stated that there are multiple jurisdictions in place, in some cases the City does

have ownership and in others its an easement across property.

* Largest portion of the easements are wetlands.

* Developers and/or homeowners associations are assessed a cost to maintain

Conservation Easements.

* Some subdivisions own the property and the City might have an overlay of

Conservation Easement on top of the ownership.

* In some cases homeowner has ownership of the property and there is a Conservation

Easement which the City has negotiated property rights to that states it is a protected

area.

* Originally Conservation Easements were made as part of the site plan and showed

ownership; whether it was property owned or separately owned, it was identified.

* Currently Conservation Easements do not show on the GIS tracking system.

Mr. Rousse suggested the City perform a complete inventory of Conservation

Easements. He further stated that the engineering department is spread out between

sewer, water, drains and roads and that he cannot justify adding Conservation

Easement enforcement.

Chairperson Barnett, directed Mr. Rousse to move forward with the inventory with the

understanding that it is a multi-year program.